On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 12:45:46PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July > 14, 2002 11:57 AM Subject: Re: (~) Please. > > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:47:27AM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > > > I think its because 2 of our friends are fighting and we want it > > > to stop. One way or another it will. But we want the damage > > > minimized. > > > > This is what I mean by (melo)dramatic. Fight? Damage? I just don't > > see it that way. > > Well.......thats the problem really..........your and Jeroens behavior > is upsetting people.
So your explanation is: people get involved in a thread that upsets them for the reason that the posts from other people are upsetting them? If I have that right, then it would seem ignoring the posts that upset them to be the more prudent course, unless, of course, they get some sort of fulfillment out of being upset. That's why I say I don't understand it. > 2 Its not exactly intervention. Its an attempt to get you and > Jeroen to keep the peace of your own accord with out it becoming an > official matter in any way. ( I believe self-discipline is the best > discipline.) I'm involved in an interesting thread; Jeroen is posting his usual stuff. The only thing I see that will cause the "peace" to be unkept is if someone else makes a big official deal out of it. > 3 This list keeps moving towards dissolution. It takes a critical mass > of active posters to keep a list alive. This list has been actively > molting posters for 2 years. When Cornell drops this list, if we only > have a few active posters, it will be a waste of time to find a new > home. I think that is a small risk. Personally, I'd rather promote tolerance by taking a small risk rather than cater to the whim of a few people who are too easily offeneded and incapable of ignoring that which upsets them. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
